Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1887-12-15
KANSAS PROHIBITION.

taIns the ConstIeufEOnaIffy OF the KAN
sAs ProhIbltOry Law.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6.-The Suprerne
Court OF the United States yesterday gave
a decision In the cases of Jacob Mugler
against the State OF Kansas and the SLate
against ZIebold. The decision Of the lover
court was affirmed in the Mugler cases and
reversed IN the Ziebold case. TIE eject
is TO declare valid the Prohibition law IN
Kansas. The opinion was by Justlce H0r-
ian, who said:
The general question in each case is Whethe
the Prohibition statutes of Kansas are IN con-
dict with that clause OF the fourteenth amend
ment which provides that mo State shall make
enforce any law which shall aoridge me
privileges or iInmunities OF citizens OF the L nj
ted States. nor shall any State deprive any per-
son OF life, liberty or property without que pro
cess OF law"
manufacture within her limits OF Intoxicating
liquors, 10 be resold or bartered for general use
a beverage, does not necessarily infringe
any right privilege or immunity secured oy
the Constitution OF the United States IL
made clear by the decisions of this court
rendered. before and since the adoption OF
the Fourteenth amendment II Ii. however,
commended that although the State may pro-
hibit the ma ufacture of intoxicating liquors
for sale barter within her limits tor general
use as a beverage, no Convention nor Legislature
has the right under our form OF Governments
10 prohibit any citizen from manufacturing for
his own use or for export or storage any arti-
Gle OF food or drink not endangering or AFFECT
ing the rights OF others. The argument made
in support OF the first branch Of this PROPOSE
ton briefly stated is: That, in the implied
contracts between the State and the citi-
zen, certain rights are reserved by the latter
which guaranteed by the constitutional
provisions for the protection OF life, liberty and
property against deprivation without due pro
cess OF law and with which the State not
interfere; that among those rights is that Oh
manufacturing for ones own use OF either 1000
OF drink; that, while according 10 the doctrines
OF the commune, the State may control the
tastes, appetites, habits, dress, food and drink
OF the citizen. our system OF Government
based upon the individuality and intelligence
OF the people, does not claim 10 control him
cept as 70 his conduct 10 others. leaving him the
sole judge as TO all that only Effects himself
It will be observed that the proposition and
the argument made in support OF IL equally
concede that the right TO manufacture drink
for ones personal use is subject 10 the condi.
ton that such manufacture does not endan-
ger or affect the rights of others. If such
manufacture does prejudi0ially affect the
rights and interests OF the community, it fol-
lows from the very premises stated by coun-
sci that society has the power to protect
itself by legislation against the injurious CON
sequences of that business.
But by whom or by what authority is IL 10 be
determined whether the manufacture OF partic
ular articles Of drink, either for general use OF
for the personal Of the maker, will injurious
ly affect the public Power TO determine such
questions, 10 bind all, must exist
where, else society will be at the mercy OF the
few who, regarding only their own appe'
tites or passions, may be willing 70
imperil the peace and security of the
many, provided they permitted
10 do as they please. Under our system that
power is lodged with the legislative branches
Of the Government. 1t belongs TO that depart
ment 10 exert what are known the police
powers of the State. II must determine prin-
arily what measures are appropriate and need
full for the protection OF the public morals, the
public health or the public safety.
AS the courts must obey the Constitution
rather than the law-making department OF Gov
eminent, it must, upon its responsibility. de-
termine whether in any particular case these
limits have been passei I. The courts are not
bound by mere forms. nor are they to be misled
by mere pretenses. They ut liberty-in-
deed, are under a solemn duty-tO look at the
substance OF things whenever they enter upon
the inquiry whether the Legislature has trans
cended the limits OF its authority. II, there
fore. a statute purporting TO have been enacted
70 protect the public health, the public morals
or the public safety. has no real or substantial
relation 10 those objects, or is palrable inva-
sion OF rights secured by the fundamental law,
it is the duty of the courts to SO adjudge, and
thereby give effect to the Constitution.
Keeping in view these principles as govern
ing the relations with each other of the judicial
and legislative departments OF the Government,
IL is difficult TO perceive any ground for the ju-
dietary TO declare that the prohibition by Kan
S2S OF the manufacture or sale Within her limits
or intoxicating liquors for general use there as
z beverage is not fairly adapted 10 the end of
the community against the evils
which confessedly result from the excessive
use OF ardent spirits There is here no Iustih-
cation for holding that the State, under the
g1se merely OF police regulations is aiming TO
deprive the citizen OF his constitutional rights.
If, therefore. State deems the absolute pro-
hibition OF The manufacture and sale within her
limits Of intoxicating liquors for other than
iEN lNnV1
10 be necessary to the peace and security OF So
ciety, the courts not, without usurping leg
slative functions, override the will of the pep
pie as thus expressed by their chosen repre-
sentatives. II is fundamental principle in our
indispensable TO the preservation
Of public liberty, that one of the separate de-
OF Government shall not usurp pow
ers committed by the Constitution 10 another
department.
With reference 20 the assertion that the pro-
libitlon OF the manufacture and sale of liquor
iepriVee liquor dealers OF their property with
'ut due process OF law, the court says that all
property under the American form OF govern
nent is subject TO the obligation that il shall be
lsed so as not 10 injuriously affect the rights Of
he community and thereby become a nuisance.
The State OF Kansas had right 70 prohibit the
liquor traffic II did not thereby take away the
of the brewers. II simply abated
nuisance.
For the reason stated, says Justice Harlan,
We are OF opinion that Mugler the plaintiff
d error, has not been denied by the iudg-
nent of the Supreme Court of Kansas any
light, privilege or immunity secured 10 him
y the Constitution of the United States. and
IS judgment in each case is accordingly af-
rmed. We are also Of opinion that the Cir
nit Court of the United Sta'es erred IN dis
Missing the bill, the bill OF the State in her
uit against Ziebold and Hagelfn. The decree
n that case is reversed and the cause remand
d, with directions to enter decree grantingto
he State such relief as the act Of March T. 1881,
Justice Field concurred in the opinion as
related TO the two cases in which the
slate OF Kansas was defendant, but dis
euted as to the case OF the State Of Kansas
1ainsf Ziahnld He aoreed h. s.id 4n